I can sort of understand why they wouldn't show some of the teams that are way behind.

Even though it is how most of the teams started, seeing small teams working on a shoestring with more ideas than actual hardware doesn't improve the case for investment in the industry. It could be a move to try and improve the image of the growing industry, but i suppose we'll have to see if they say anything.

To be listed might help to find sponsors and at least some of those seeming not to do much might need (additional) sponsors. So all teams should be listed

That the XPRIZE is comming to an end isn't a valid argument - of my opinion - because there will be the XPRIZE CUP and the teams not listed today may be ready when the first CUP is taking place. But they need sponsoring etc. to able to - to be listed might help them to use the CUPas a second chance.

That the XPRIZE is comming to an end isn't a valid argument - of my opinion - because there will be the XPRIZE CUP

Yeah. I agree. Somehow it doesn't seem like the teams would be dropped from the site just because there's a scheduled launch soon. So many things could happen. I'm still thinking there must be teams that have somehow or other officially dropped out of the race (or have been dropped).

please take into account, that there are several temas having the same concept - this fact may be the reason why some teams don't have sufficient sponsoring, finace etc. These ressources are dispersed among teams with similar or equal concepts. And it is supposingly the major obstacle for them this time.

Is there a chance, that the Foundation assits them to join and work together to increase their chances? The sponsor would have to be sitting at the table too someway.

May that be possible? At least it would make the CUP more interetsing becuase of more competition and a wider variaty of concepts.

THen noone needs to be dropped from the list - and you can list several teams together by using the concepts as a basis for creating classes of teams.

Is there a chance, that the Foundation assits them to join and work together to increase their chances? The sponsor would have to be sitting at the table too someway.

May that be possible? At least it would make the CUP more interetsing becuase of more competition and a wider variaty of concepts.

This seems like an interesting idea in concept, but it seems to fall apart upon closer examination. The teams that share a similar concept for reaching space are based upon quite different designs. Even if on the surface they are similar, you wouldn't be able to mix-and-match parts, launch pads, controlling systems, fuel, or even crew. You'd have to ask the team that's further behind to abandon their concept to assist a similar idea in a different part of the world. Plus sponsors aren't necessarily putting up funding for the *concept* - In a large part they are funding the *team* and the *vision*. Is this what you are suggesting, or am I misreading your post?

You've also suggested here (and elsewhere on the board), that we should strongly support a wider variety of concepts in the quest for space travel. By combining teams or something, you'd actually be reducing competition. And having two teams with similar concepts doesn't mean that they will have the same exact launches, or even have similar successes.

Think about the *very* early attempts at flight, and all the crazy contraptions that just didn't work. Eventually drawings got out of what the Wright brothers were working on, and many designers imitated their proven concept. These "imitators" shared the similar concept, but each were unique, and had their own successes. (often out-doing what the Wright brothers had achieved early on....)

Variety is good, but let's not make it one of the top priorities. Let's just get to space

you wrote "Plus sponsors aren't necessarily putting up funding for the *concept* - In a large part they are funding the *team* and the *vision*. Is this what you are suggesting, or am I misreading your post?" - you are right I think - that I was suggesting.

I wasn't thinking of mixing and matching parts - I was reasoning about asking the teams to do what cou are saying - "to abandon their concept to assist a similar idea in a different part of the world".

But this proposal as well as similar proposals I have been suggesting elsewhere are only valid if otherwise none of the teams to be asked would be able to complete its spacecraft for at least one launch. For example - if there were 10 teams, two of them successful alone and the other eight would fail completely because of dispersed resources among themselves, there only would be two teams competing for a prize or a cup by launches. But if the other eight would join successfully they have a good chance to form a third competitor.

But I don't consider this proposal as a top priority - it's providing a solution - not more. What is to be done is networking between the teams, establishing some coordination by only one person and then leave them of themselves again. But it should be done only, if there are time and other ressources left for it. And my proposal will be of use in future too - concerning the CUP for example or prizes after first success in getting to space.

As you know we have just launch a new website, at the same that we have been extremely busy with our T-60 day notice from Scaled Composites and Da Vinci Project's pending rollout of flight hardware.

The 19 teams listed on the website, are those from which we were able to get detailed updated information. A number of the other teams which originally registered have become either inactive (of their own choice) or have not responded to our requests for updated information. These missing teams have no been de-registered. We will continue to reach out to them and support them as teams.

Over the weeks ahead, we will continue to update the website and make corrections. Please bear with us. We are working 24x7 to make the site accurate and also to make the X PRIZE an amazing global success.

Hope that answers all the questions. I'm glad to hear that the exclussion of teams is based on some sort of process. Sounds like they are continuing to an excellent job of keeping things fair.

By and large, it looks like the issue is that the links are to xprize.org, but should be to xprize.com. Or something like that. I didn't have any trouble replying to this one, so maybe they've resolved the link issue.